tedsoutfitfandomcom-20200213-history
Michigan and coal
Introduction Michigan's coal mining industry spanned from 1860 to 1949 and produced over 46 million tons of coal. Mining conditions were difficult, because the state's coal deposits are highly variable in thickness and distribution and often drop out suddenly.Magnitude and Quality of Michigan's Coal Reserves, OFR - 102 - 76 U.S. Bureau of Mines Open File Report, 1977. All of Michigan's coal is bituminous in rank and averages 1-3 percent sulfur and 3-9 percent ash.Coal Resources in the Michigan Basin: Some Suggestions for Development, Aureal T. Cross, October 2002. In 2004, Michigan consumed over 35 million short tons of coal for electrical powerMining in Michigan, National Mining Association, accessed June 2008. to produce approximately 60 percent of its electricity. The state's average retail price of electricity is the 22nd highest in that nation at 8.14 cents per kilowatt hour."The Facts", America's Power, accessed June 2008. In 2003, Michigan emitted 185 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 9th in the nation overall."Texas, Wyoming lead in emissions", USA Today, June 2, 2007. Citizen activism Recent coal activism in Michigan has centered on fighting new coal-fired plant proposals: Wolverine Power Cooperative’s Wolverine Clean Energy Venture, Mid-Michigan Energy’s Midland Power Plant, and Consumer Energy’s Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion. Tondu Corporation’s proposal for a new coal plant in Manistee was cancelled after the zoning permit was denied in 2004. One of the first citizen activist groups to spring up in response to Michigan's coal rush was Citizens for Environmental Inquiry. This group was formed in Northern Michigan in response to Wolverine Electrical Coop's announcement of plans for a large facility near Roger's City, in the northeastern lower peninsula. CEI quickly formed alliances with other groups throughout the state, and was an early aggressive player in filing a lawsuit against the Department of Environmental Quality to force the DEQ to follow the Supreme Court's directive to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.“CEI Sues the DEQ”, Citizens for Environmental Inquiry, accessed August 2008. CEI has faced challenges in raising awareness locally because of the area’s depressed economic condition. Many citizens are convinced that a large coal facility is the only course to create jobs in the area. In response to economic concerns, CEI points to a study by Tom Sanzillo, senior analyst with T.R. Rose & Associates, a public policy consulting firm.“Study Questions Financial Impact of Rogers City Coal-Fired Power Plant”, alpenanow.com, May 14, 2008. "Michigan residents are looking at electricity from this plant that will approach 17-18 cents per kilowatt-hour" the study concluded, which is "more than double the current price."“Study Explodes Cheap Coal Myth”, MidlandCARES, January 21, 2008. MidlandCARES is another Michigan activist group that was formed by a diverse group of professionals, including several in the health care sector, to fight a new coal plant proposed for the Midland area. The group’s concerns include the environmental and health impacts of plant emissions, both locally and on global climate change. MidlandCARES members regularly attend and speak out at relevant city and county meetings to inform the community and create a documented record of opposition to the proposed plant. Alliances with the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council have provided legal and technical expertise to the group, and members have also formed links with activists in the Essexville area fighting the Karn/Weadock expansion project.MidlandCARES.org, accessed August 2008. A valuable online clearinghouse of information for all Michigan anti-coal actions is at http://www.cleanenergynowmi.org/ History Michigan has a history as a coal mining state,"The Coal Fields of Bay County," Michigan Family History Network, accessed October 2008. and a number of abandoned coal mines are still evident in the mid-Michigan area. Michigan coal seams are thinner and more difficult to mine than in Appalachia, Wyoming, or other areas, so by the 1960's, Michigan's coal fields were abandoned. As the center of the Great Lake shipping lanes,"Great Lakes Ports and Shipping," TEACH Great Lakes, accessed October 2008. Michigan is a cross roads for coal shipments from the fields of Appalachia in the east, and Wyoming in the West, to power plants and industrial sites from Buffalo and Cleveland to Chicago and Duluth. Legislative issues Renewable Portfolio Standard Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has expressed her goal for a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 25 percent, to help Michigan compete with the 26 other states that have ambitious RPS."Granholm Pushing State to Produce More Alternative Energy", Mlive.com, December 11, 2007. In September 2008, the Michigan Senate passed a version of the energy legislation that included a 10 percent (by 2015) RPS standard, and sent it to governor.Senate Bill 0213, Michigan Legislature, accessed October 2008. A controversial part of the legislation includes the concept of "deskewing" Michigan electrical rates, which would shift a portion of electricity costs from industry to residential consumers. Rate structures adopted during times when Michigan's industrial citizens were far more prosperous, had companies like General Motors paying a greater percentage of electrical costs. Now that Michigan manufacturing has fallen on hard times, there is a movement to shift power costs partially back on to consumers. Several citizen's groups, as well as Michigan's Attorney General, have opposed the move. In addition, the legislation will attempt to allocate charges for new renewable energy sources among different user groups, a process which is also controversial."Electric Energy Changes to Hike Rates $2 to $2.8 Billion," Office of the Attorney General, March 11, 2008. In addition, some critics questioned several other features of the bill. The 10 percent RPS lags behind many state mandates,especially considering that Michigan already produces 4% of its power from renewables, primarily hydro. Environmental groups have also pointed out that the bill limits the amount of spending on energy efficiency, while placing no caps on coal or nuclear solutions. Early Press reports give some indication of the mixed reaction from groups around the state. While some business leaders expressed disatisfaction with the bills mandate for renewables, Muskegon Chamber of Commerce President, Cindy Larsen, said, "This is a great example of the 'Old Economy Meets the New Economy. There are people trying to hang on to the old economy which, we know, doesn't work anymore. We're trying to push the culture forward so we can really benefit from energy technology, which is a critical component of the new economy.""Renewable Portfolio Standard passes, not everybody's happy," Business Review Western Michigan, September 18, 2008. The Detroit News, a conservative newspaper, expressed reservations about the potential costs of the measure, some of which are unrelated to the renewable portions of the bill. For instance, the News pointed out, "(the bill) would allow utility companies to overrun the cost of construction projects by 17.5 percent without returning to the public service commission for approval.""State energy bill will hit consumers hard," Detroit News, September 10, 2008. The News also worried about "new energy bureaucracy that will insert itself into private homes and businesses." Privately, environmental leaders views were mixed, with some expressing support for the bill in hopes that its strengths will overcome its weaknesses. In particular, the inclusion of an Integrated Resource Planning requirement for utilities planning new projects would, it is hoped, mean that underutilized resources like efficiency and currently idle gas turbine facilities would be included as potential options to new coal or nuclear units. In addition, environmentalists praised the inclusion of reformed Net Metering rules which are seen as helpful to the development of small business and household renewable power production. One problematic portion of the bill is the provision for "Construction Work in Progress", which will allow utilities to begin charging customers for new power plants during the construction phase, years before any actual electricity is available. With the rapidly rising costs for all new thermal power plants, this provision is critical for utilities to obtain funding from capital markets for new projects. [http://enr.construction.com/news/powerindus/archives/080205.asp "Utilities Want to Charge Ratepayers Sooner, Not Later," Engineering News Record, February 5, 2008. This may be an issue that environmental groups will focus on to educate consumers about the true costs of new coal construction. Environmental advocates have identified a number of “Pros” and “Cons” in regard to the new energy legislation. PROS: RESTART THE STATE’S EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS: In the best case, could reduce demand for electricity by around 5% over the next seven years. This might place Michigan in the middle of the pack of states that have efficiency programs, since some are reaching now for 2%/year. This is real progress on a key issue for pollution reduction, saving money and undermining the economics of new coal/nukes. REQUIRING RENEWABLES: The provisions require minimum buildouts from Consumer's Power (500 MW by 2015), and DTE (600 MW by 2015), which will jumpstart renewables in the state, and create jobs. INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING IS REQUIRED: The addition of an integrated resource planning process that would require utilities to show new power plants were the “most reasonable and prudent” manner to proceed for satisfying demand for power. CONS: PUBLIC SENTIMENT COULD BE TURNED AGAINST RENEWABLES: The "deskewing" feature of the rate structure causes residential customers to bear a larger burden relative to industrial custumers. A "Renewables" line item could appear on electric bills, which might include costs for some forms of coal, nuclear and other power which is not renewable in nature. OPENS THE DOOR FOR COAL/NUKES: Guaranteed recovery of cost overruns and construction work in progress provisions may make it easier to finance large coal and nuclear projects. Cost caps on renewables could make large power plants artificially competitive. Renewable Energy Sources Act (feed in tarriff) Michigan Renewable Energy Sources Act, House Bill 5218, would guarantee long-term, fixed prices for electricity generated from renewable sources. It was introduced by Michigan State Representative Kathleen Law and is based on German's "feed in tariff" (FIT) model to help increase renewable energy use."Feed in Tariff" website, accessed July 2008 Michigan Power Demand Michigan is one of only two states that lost population in 2007. Staff, "Michigan Counties Population changes" 'Northwest Michigan Council of Government. Since 2003, cumulative real GDP growth in Michigan has ranked last among all states, declining by 3 percent. Growth in Michigan's electrical demand is somewhat in doubt. Michigan is one of only two states that lost population in 2007. Comerica Bank, "Michigan Brief" 'Comerica BankComerica Bank, "Michigan Brief" 'Comerica Bank It has the highest unemployment rate in the country and the forecast is not positive because of Big 3 capacity downsizing. In November 2008, Michigan's unemployment number hit 9.3%. As a result, Michigan’s two largest utilities, “DTE and CMS reported electricity sales down about 4 percent from the same quarter a year ago.” Michigan “is using less electricity than we were in 2000” according to a recent article. Amy Lane, http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20080811/SUB/808110356 "Lower Electricity sales cited in energy reform debate"] 'Crain's Detroit Business Even the chief economist for the very conservative Mackinac Center, a right wing think tank in Midland, MI, David Littmann, has stated “....considering the many plant closings and losses of employment and population, a realistic assessment would anticipate up to five years of declining energy demand in Michigan.” In November, 2008, Consumer's Energy announced that electrical demand was down, but both Consumer's and LS Power re-affirmed their commitment to build power plants planned for Bay and Midland County. The Wall Street Journal reported (November 21, 2008) that, nationwide, "An unexpected drop in U.S. electricity consumption has utility companies worried that the trend isn't a byproduct of the economic downturn, and could reflect a permanent shift in consumption that will require sweeping change in their industry." Michigan's Congressional Delegation Michigan members of the House of Representatives have been identified as some of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from the Coal Industry. John D. Dingell (D-MI), until November, 2008, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,received $129,000 in coal contributions during the 110th congress while representing district 15. Dave Camp, a Republican representing the 4th District, which includes Midland, received $27,649 in coal contributions during the 110th congress.Follow the Coal Money, accessed October 2008. Mr. Dingell was replaced in his Energy and Commerce post by California's Henry Waxman in the fall of 2008. Tracking the origin of mercury deposits In October 2008, researchers at the University of Michigan announced they had developed a tool that uses natural "fingerprints" in coal to trace the source of mercury emissions in the environment. The new method is expected to distinguish mercury pollution caused by coal plants from that caused by other industrial activities, as well as to differentiate between different coal deposits. The researchers hope to be able to detect mercury coming from specific coal plants in the United States, and track the movement and deposition of mercury produced by coal plants overseas. The group believes that the tool will be useful in analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the numerous coal plants currently proposed in Michigan."'Fingerprinting' Method Tracks Mercury Emissions From Coal," ScienceDaily, October 9, 2008. Proposed coal plants Active *Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion *Midland Power Plant *Wolverine Clean Energy Venture *Lansing Board of Water and Light * James De Young Generation Station Expansion proposed by Holland Board of Public Works Cancelled *Northern Lights Citizen groups *Citizens for Environmental Inquiry *Ecology Center *Environment Michigan *Michigan Clean Water Action *Michigan Energy Alternatives Project *Michigan Environmental Council *Michigan Land Use Institute *MidlandCARES *Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council *ProgressMichigan *Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter *Michigan Land Use Institute *Saginaw Chippewa Tribe Coal lobbying groups Power companies *DTE Energy **Headquarters in Detroit, MI **14th biggest coal energy company in U.S. **Owner of Detroit Edison Co. **Controls 22 coal-fired generating stations with 7998 MW total capacity *CMS Energy **Headquarters in Jackson, MI **31st biggest coal energy company in U.S. **Owner of Consumers Energy **Controls 14 coal-fired generating stations with 3055 MW total capacity **Active proposals: Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion *Wolverine Power Cooperative **Headquarters in Cadillac, MI **Active proposals: Wolverine Clean Energy Venture *Upper Peninsula Power, a division of Integrys *White Pine Electric Power LLC, a division of Traxys *Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a division of We Energies Existing coal plants Michigan is 10th in the nation in coal power generation, with 88 operating coal-fired power stations totaling 12,891 megawatts (MW).Existing U.S. Coal Plants 49 of these units are larger than 50MW.Power Plants in Michigan, Powerplantjobs.com, accessed June 2008.Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration website, accessed May 2008. Major coal mines Michigan has no major coal mines.Major U.S. Coal Mines, Energy Information Administration, 2006. Resources References Related SourceWatch articles *Existing U.S. Coal Plants *US proposed coal plants (both active and cancelled) *Coal plants cancelled in 2007 *Coal plants cancelled in 2008 *Michigan Renewable Energy Sources Act *Michigan wind energy External links *Enhanced Public Participation Process - more detail on the “enhanced public participation process” being used for coal plant air permits *cleanenergymi.org - keeps track of the latest developments in citizen action and regulatory actions *Process for Considering Coal Plant Proposals, from the Michigan DEQ *Power Plants in Michigan *Major U.S. Coal Mines, Energy Information Administration *Michigan Climate Action Council *Michigan Energy Overview *Michigan's Alternative Energy Potential *Michigan's Geology favors Carbon Sequestration Category:U.S. state coal profiles